I voted 100 years and not never because I think it will happen some day, far, far in the future. I say far, far in the future because there is no place in this solar system even 0.00001% as good as Earth to live on. If Earth lost half it's atmosphere, all of its magnetic field, and was plunged into an ice age, a catastrophe worse than being hit by a 10 km asteroid, it would still be far, far more hospitable than Mars, the next best place in the solar system.

This beginning might the first permanetly maaned lunar station as well as the first selfsustaining permanently manned orbital space station. Perhaps it would be better to consider the beginning to be the first permanently manned Mars station.

Since NASA says they reestablish manned lunar missions in 2018 and concepts are considered how to gather components of a lunar station and where to do that on the Moon this can be considered to be a beginning of space colonization - even if that is a first step to Mars only.

For this reason I voted for 20 years - but I am still interested in your definition of the beginning.

This beginning might the first permanetly maaned lunar station as well as the first selfsustaining permanently manned orbital space station. Perhaps it would be better to consider the beginning to be the first permanently manned Mars station.

Since NASA says they reestablish manned lunar missions in 2018 and concepts are considered how to gather components of a lunar station and where to do that on the Moon this can be considered to be a beginning of space colonization - even if that is a first step to Mars only.

For this reason I voted for 20 years - but I am still interested in your definition of the beginning.Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

Well I probably should've included that point - what is considered space colonization. Actually, I am gonna leave it open ended, becuase I am curious as to how other people see the cross-over point into colonization.

I think a very valid case could be made that we have already started (in fact, thats why the very first vote, cast by me, was for "we have already started"

But, I'm much more interested in how other people define the beginning of colonization, and then of course, the subsequent when.

I would say that 'space colonisation' will have begun only when there are human beings who consider their permanent homes to lie outside of the atmosphere of the Earth. I'm sure that the astronauts aboard the ISS get quite attached to the place, but I doubt that they see it as 'home'.

Working with this definition, I suspect that the first space colonists might be the staff of space hotels - it seems likely that most would rotate between Earth-based and space-based positions, but given the high costs of transportation which can be expected to remain for some time to come, there certainly will be incentives for staff to take up residence in orbit.

I consider it colonization when they can live indefinitely with no help at all from Earth. Any settlement, no matter how large, that depends on help from Earth to survive does not count as colonization in my mind.

I consider it colonization when they can live indefinitely with no help at all from Earth. Any settlement, no matter how large, that depends on help from Earth to survive does not count as colonization in my mind.

I would have to point out, though, in that case, one could argue that we haven't really colonized America (or at least the US), since we definatly import a lot of our stuff. I realize this may seem as nitpicky, but by demanding total separation, one could argue that we'll never be truly colonizing space, since, quite likely, as society has moved forward, we create a greater and greater push towards interdependancy. And I suspect that, as we expand into space, we will see that interdependancy continue.

You have a point. My opinion is that we will probably never colonize other planets in this solar system or build space colonies. We will have space stations and bases on planets, like we have a base at the south pole. True colonies will be in other solar systems. Which means we need interstellar capability first.
Don't take it to seriously, it is just one opinion in the poll.

there has been a constant human presence in space since the first space station crew, if we constantly had someone living on an island we would say it was inhabited, so we are there. Thats the facts, we are there for good already

I'm not sure you can call the ISS a colony. You wouldn't call a boat at sea a colony, especially if all the crew were changed every few months. A couple of guys in LEO do not qualify as an attempt at colonisation when there is no intention of making the arragement permanent (the ISS has finite life span) or very large.

While humanity may set up bases and outposts in the solar system, I dont see anyone setting up home off-world for at least 100 years or even more.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

You have a point. My opinion is that we will probably never colonize other planets in this solar system or build space colonies. We will have space stations and bases on planets, like we have a base at the south pole. True colonies will be in other solar systems. Which means we need interstellar capability first.Don't take it to seriously, it is just one opinion in the poll.

so, you are assuming that FTL is either impossible, or quite a ways off? Because, if you add FTL into the mix, you get right back to the point I originaly made.

Mind you, im not trying to disprove you or anything - rather, just trying to get your view on it

Andy Hill wrote:

I'm not sure you can call the ISS a colony. You wouldn't call a boat at sea a colony, especially if all the crew were changed every few months. A couple of guys in LEO do not qualify as an attempt at colonisation when there is no intention of making the arragement permanent (the ISS has finite life span) or very large.

While humanity may set up bases and outposts in the solar system, I dont see anyone setting up home off-world for at least 100 years or even more.

I'd call it a colony - or at least, rather, an attempted colony. Much like how the shuttle was suppose to make space flight routine. Neither was terribly succesful, but otherwise, the only thing the Station can be reguarded as is a multi-billion piece of pork. And I don't quite believe that.

Perhaps a better way of putting it is we have all the pieces, we just need to put it together.

The Question of the ISS being a colony leads back to a question already discussed in 2004 or beginning of 2005 somewhere here at the message board. It's the question if a location is a fixed point or if it is not and if the motion along an orbit can be compared to the flight of a Space Shuttle or another vehicle.

If a location is a fixed point on ground then the only difference between the ISS and the Moon is that the ISS is artificial while the Moon is natural - but a base or any settlement on the Moon never could be a colony.

If - alternatively - a location is not a fixed point on ground then each settlement on the Moon is like a settlement on Earth and would be a colony. But since the Moon is orbiting as well as the ISS... - does a colony have to be a settlement on a natural body? (A question which appears to be similar to the current discussion if Pluto can be called a planet and how to define "planet")

Now the ISS is orbiting Earth like the moon but not moving between two locations like the Space Shuttle - while the Space Shuttle is moving between two locations like a ship, an airplane, a car or a locomotive is moving between two locations. So the ISS is more similar to a location like the Moon than it is to a vehicle.

The only conclusion left is that the ISS as well as other orbital stations are like artificial islands in the ocean - oil platforms for example. So the ISS and other orbital stations are like fixed locations and permanent manning may be a colony.